"supi" wrote : | Ok, there will be all kinds of workarounds (subclasses, wrappers, getters etc.) at compile time or (type-less) wiring at runtime that make me think: what's the point? The only benefit I see is type-safety that affects about 2-3 users who only put one kind of objects into the cache. Everyone else has to deal with this new inflexibility in their own way, potentially introducing new bugs, clumsy workarounds, unreadable code, unsafe code (e.g. disable unchecked warnings in whole methods), etc. And lets not forget the cache library itself. More letters, less readable code => more bugs. | | In my opinion, at this point a step in the wrong direction. | No worry, workarounds are not needed, you don't have to use generics (just like you don't have to use them with java collections). It's purely syntactic sugar for those that want the additional compiler checking. -Jason View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4035821#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...